Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2826: multi-gem5: add support for multi gem5 runs

Nilay, Correct - we will be posting those as soon as we're through polishing them up. We've been using different configuration scripts to launch multi-gem5 thus far so we just need to finish porting the changes to the main gem5 scripts you mention. Thanks, Curtis -Original Message- Fr

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2826: multi-gem5: add support for multi gem5 runs

> On June 23, 2015, 9:19 p.m., Nilay Vaish wrote: > > There are several style issues. The writer should read > > gem5.org/Coding_Style. > > I am still trying to understand all the synchronization code. So it will > > take > > me sometime before I am able to review that code. Nilay, I've addre

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2826: multi-gem5: add support for multi gem5 runs

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2826/ --- (Updated June 24, 2015, 11:56 p.m.) Review request for Default. Repository: gem5

Re: [gem5-dev] pd-gem5: simulating a parallel/distributed system on multiple physical hosts

Hi Andreas, Thanks for the comment. I think the checkpointing support in both works is the same. Here is how checkpointing support is implemented in pd-gem5: Whenever one of gem5 processes encounter an m5-checkpoint pseudo instruction, it will send a “recv-ckpt” signal to the “barrier” process. T

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2845: ruby: Expose MessageBuffers as SimObjects

> On June 24, 2015, 4:54 p.m., Joel Hestness wrote: > > configs/ruby/Ruby.py, line 92 > > > > > > Splitting Brad's comments for easier tracking: "Overall, can this code > > be moved into the Switch and Liny .py files rather

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2845: ruby: Expose MessageBuffers as SimObjects

> On June 22, 2015, 5:06 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote: > > src/mem/ruby/network/MessageBuffer.py, line 39 > > > > > > Why is a default recycle latency not set? > > > > Why is this "Parent.recycle_latency"? Does both

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2911: Ruby: Remove assert in RubyPort retry list logic

> On June 24, 2015, 7:30 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.hh, line 191 > > > > > > A port is not allowed to send a new request until it gets a retry, so > > the assert is appropriate in this cas

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2845: ruby: Expose MessageBuffers as SimObjects

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2845/#review6591 --- configs/ruby/Ruby.py (line 92)

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2845: ruby: Expose MessageBuffers as SimObjects

> On June 22, 2015, 5:06 p.m., Brad Beckmann wrote: > > configs/ruby/Ruby.py, line 98 > > > > > > Overall, can this code be moved into the Switch and Liny .py files > > rather than have it here in Ruby.py? > > > > A

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2911: Ruby: Remove assert in RubyPort retry list logic

> On June 24, 2015, 7:30 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.hh, line 191 > > > > > > A port is not allowed to send a new request until it gets a retry, so > > the assert is appropriate in this cas

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2911: Ruby: Remove assert in RubyPort retry list logic

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2911/#review6587 --- Ship it! Ship It! - Andreas Hansson On June 23, 2015, 9:52 p.m., Jaso

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2911: Ruby: Remove assert in RubyPort retry list logic

> On June 24, 2015, 7:30 a.m., Andreas Hansson wrote: > > src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.hh, line 191 > > > > > > A port is not allowed to send a new request until it gets a retry, so > > the assert is appropriate in this cas

Re: [gem5-dev] pd-gem5: simulating a parallel/distributed system on multiple physical hosts

Hi Steve, Apologies for the confusion. We are on the same page. My point is that we cannot simply take a little bit of patch A and a little bit of patch B. This change involves a lot of code, and we need to approach this in a structured fashion. My proposal is to do it bottom up, and start by gett

Re: [gem5-dev] pd-gem5: simulating a parallel/distributed system on multiple physical hosts

Hi Andreas, I'm a little confused by your email---you say you're fundamentally opposed to looking at both patches and picking the best features, then you point out that the patches Curtis posted have the feature of better checkpointing support so we should pick that :). Obviously we can't just pi

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2908: ruby: Fix checkpointing and restore

On June 24, 2015, 7:49 a.m., Timothy Jones wrote: > > I do not think this is the way to go. There is already an established > > methodology to solve the issue. > > Timothy Jones wrote: > I don't think draining is the way forward, but there could well be other, > better solutions than the o

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2908: ruby: Fix checkpointing and restore

On June 24, 2015, 8:49 a.m., Timothy Jones wrote: > > I do not think this is the way to go. There is already an established > > methodology to solve the issue. > > Timothy Jones wrote: > I don't think draining is the way forward, but there could well be other, > better solutions than the o

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2908: ruby: Fix checkpointing and restore

On June 24, 2015, 7:49 a.m., Timothy Jones wrote: > > I do not think this is the way to go. There is already an established > > methodology to solve the issue. I don't think draining is the way forward, but there could well be other, better solutions than the one I've got here. My aim was to

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2908: ruby: Fix checkpointing and restore

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2908/#review6581 --- src/mem/ruby/system/System.cc (line 86)

[gem5-dev] Review Request 2908: ruby: Fix checkpointing and restore

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2908/ --- Review request for Default and Ruby Reviewers. Summary (updated) -

Re: [gem5-dev] Review Request 2911: Ruby: Remove assert in RubyPort retry list logic

--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://reviews.gem5.org/r/2911/#review6580 --- src/mem/ruby/system/RubyPort.hh (line 191)

Re: [gem5-dev] pd-gem5: simulating a parallel/distributed system on multiple physical hosts

Hi all, Great work. However, I fundamentally do not believe in the approach of ‘letting reviewers pick the best features’. There is no way we would ever get something working out if it. We need to get _one_ working solution here, and figure out how to best get there. I would propose to do it botto

[gem5-dev] Cron /z/m5/regression/do-regression quick

* build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/minor-timing passed. * build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/o3-timing passed. * build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple-atomic passed. * build/ALPHA/tests/opt/quick/se/00.hello/alpha/linux/simple